​A couple of weeks ago, the History Channel presented a documentary in which the Vieira Brothers went in search of evidence that the colonists from Roanoke had gone inland instead of to Hatteras Island (formerly Croatoan), as is commonly accepted. While a new report doesn’t prove them right, it does cast doubt on the consensus of the past twenty years about the fate of the colonists, and could offer a lifeline to those who believe that the so-called Eleanor Dare Stone is an authentic Elizabethan document.

​In 1998, the discovery on Hatteras of a gold ring emblazoned with a lion passant led to speculation that the item belonged to Kendall family, one of whom was among the colonists and another who visited in 1586, because the lion passant was their family crest. This suggested that the colonists had decamped to Hatteras after the failure of their colony, perhaps to live with Native Americans there. The evidence suggested that the story told on the so-called Eleanor Dare Stone, a rock found in the 1930s and inscribed with what seemed to be the story of the flight of the colonists from Roanoke, was unlikely to be true.

A new study of the ring by North Carolina state conservator Erik Farrell determined that the ring is of brass, not gold, and is likely a seventeenth century trade item used in commerce with Native Americans. Not all scholars agree, however, that brass precludes an Elizabethan origin. Other artifacts found on Hatteras also appear to be from the 1600s and 1700s, according to Smithsonian magazine. Instead, Smithsonian reports that artifacts that might have belonged to the lost colony have been found along the Albemarle Sound, near the spot where an English fort had been planned before the failure of the Roanoke colony. This is the spot that the Eleanor Dare Stone commemorates, and it is close to where the stone was found in the 1930s.

While none of this validates the authenticity of the Dare Stone, it does raise an intriguing question about why a potential forger might have placed the stone in that location. While at first glance, this would seem to suggest authenticity, it need not necessarily be so. The historical record clearly indicates that the Roanoke colonists, under Philip Amadas and Ralph Lane, explored the Albemarle Sound (which they called the “Sound of Weapomeiock”) in the spring of 1586 and passed the information on to John White, whose map is the only one to indicate the abandoned location of the fort. According to Lane’s own account of events sent to Sir Walter Raleigh, Lane thought that the sound would lead to the Spanish colonies of Mexico via “a passage to the South-sea, or some way to it.” Lane gave out to all who would listen the claim that the land up the Albemarle Sound had “the most sweete and healthfullest climate, and therewithall the most fertile soyle (being manured) in the world.” Even without any forger knowing of the planned fort, the Albemarle Sound, being the area familiar to the colonists and apparently a place they thought would be much less harsh than Roanoke, would have been the logical choice for a forger to send them to keep in line with extant records, particularly Lane’s account. Perhaps not coincidentally, it might also be where the colonists, after Ralph Lane’s departure, chose to go, if the new evidence is true.

Thus, the loss of the ring as evidence leaves us where we started in terms of the Dare Stone’s authenticity. It could be real, or it could be fake.

What’s worth noting is that the scientists involved did not try to hide the results of the new study, nor did they attempt to suppress the truth. Even the Smithsonian, long accused by fringe historians of actively suppressing the real facts of history, published the results on its magazine’s webpage.

OK, I'm confused. Did the Dare party have boats? When I look at a map, if the Roanoke survivors were on foot they would have to cross three major channels (with a bit of a backtrack) while being pursued by hostile natives to get to Edenton, NC, where the first Dare Stone was found. And then cross the Albemarle Sound once again to head west where the rest of the hoax stones were found. And when SW did his show about Roanoke, he had a map with a "patch" on it. Does anyone remember where it was located along the sound? Was that the same location as the known proposed fort?

Reply

David Bradbury

4/9/2017 02:26:02 pm

Good images of the patched John White map at:
https://nativeheritageproject.com/2012/05/07/john-white-map-chowan-fort-discovery-analysis/

Reply

Kathleen

4/9/2017 03:44:42 pm

Thanks! That's the map I was trying to remember.

Kathleen

4/10/2017 11:35:57 am

So, did they have boats?

Reply

Titus pullo

4/9/2017 06:52:34 pm

Ok I'm trying to remember the AU episode and the first Viera show on this, didn't the guy who claimed to have found the first stone had no identified past? As for finding artifacts inland that is interesting but could they have been brought over and diatributed via trade later?

Reply

BigNick

4/9/2017 07:06:57 pm

UA only said all of the stones found after the first were found by sketchy people. I did not see the first Dare Stone special, but the second only mentions the confirmed hoaxers. Wikipedia says he only had a po box and the pinkertons could not find him later, but I cannot find that information anywhere else.
Is there any proof he actually found it where he said he did?

Reply

Only Me

4/9/2017 08:54:50 pm

Interesting. There's been three excavations then: Fort Raleigh, Roanoke and now Albemarle Sound. It really feels like the Dare Stone is circumstantial evidence, hoax or not.

Still, I'm inclined to believe the colonists went to Roanoke. They had allies in the Croatoan, so if they were fleeing for their lives, it would make sense they'd try for friendly territory.

Reply

Only Me

4/9/2017 09:13:24 pm

Correction: Fort Raleigh, Hatteras and Albemarle Sound.

Reply

Dr Jones

4/9/2017 10:19:18 pm

Jason.... in reading a previous post in which you lament on the lack of new fringe ideas making it difficult for you to write material in a daily perhaps another reason for your struggles is your own lack of new ideas... it seems as if nearly all your posts include the same recycled and forced inclusions of negative comments on the nation's president

Reply

Mike Morgan

4/10/2017 05:13:21 am

Dr. Jones wrote: "...it seems as if nearly all your posts include the same recycled and forced inclusions of negative comments on the nation's president"

You must not be paying very close attention. Only two of the last 10 blog entries have mentioned the Presidents name and neither negatively.

4/1/2017
Meet the Russian Political Scientist Who Wants to Restore Proto-Indo-European Social Castes and Is a Darling of the Alt-Right

"What we do know is that Dugin was a key advisor to high officials in Putin’s ruling United Russia party, and he is a supporter of Donald Trump, whom he calls the “anointed” king of America. In what I am sure must be a coincidence, the English editions of Dugin’s many political books are published by none other than Arktos, the same company headed by rightwing ancient astronaut believer Jason Reza Jorjani, who is business partners with white nationalist Richard Spencer. Both of them, of course, are outspoken supporters of Donald Trump, whose campaign is currently under FBI and Congressional investigation for its ties to Russia."

"Dumézil was a supporter of Mussolini, later in life worked closely with ex-Nazis (including one from the Ahnenerbe), and supported the political party of Charles Maurras, the anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist and convicted Vichy collaborator whom you will remember Trump advisor Steve Bannon praised for his insight into the importance of promoting the ethno-nation over the legalities of government."

4/5/2017
I Think I'm Starting to Run Out of New Stuff to Write About

"The current White House is riven with conspiracy theories about practically everything. Its media supporters have coopted so much of the energy behind fringe history that we actually see bizarre events like last week’s claim on televangelist Jim Bakker’s show that Donald Trump is God’s anointed and that God will curse the children and grandchildren of his critics. Here’s Mary Colbert speaking to Bakker after identifying Trump as God’s chosen vessel: “And if you come against the chosen one of God, you are bringing upon you and your children and your children’s children curses like you have never seen.”

How do you compete with crazy claims like that?

Reply

An Over-Educated Grunt

4/10/2017 02:06:50 pm

Never mind any of that, what you really need to be concerned about is whether Jason has a sweaty, crumb-filled keyboard.

Reply

Leave a Reply.

Author

I'm an author and editor who has published on a range of topics, including archaeology, science, and horror fiction. There's more about me in the About Jason tab.